Stephen Lajoie (lajoie@eskimo.com) wrote:
: In article <octaviaD4C4un.9n8@netcom.com>,
: Kaa Byington <octavia@netcom.com> wrote:
: >
: >If I may butt in: it seems to me that there's no real definition of
: >race, and no way to know if what you are measuring on any test is
: >"intelligence." Garbage in, garbage out.

: First, there is real racial distinctions. Even Time magazine admits this
: when it points out that forensic scientist are able to determine race
: from skull measurments alone.

: Third, accept the definition of intelligence being what an IQ test
: measures. Since significant corelations between economic status, crime,
: teenage pregnancy, academic ability And IQ score have been shown to
: exist, it is a useful measure.

You're still repeating the same, discredited tripe. JLopez knocks
it all to hell - you can't counter. James White proves, before
everyone on alt.discrimination, that you don't even understand
the basics of probability, you say nothing.

You're like a parrot, taught one archaic view of the world,
continuing to repeat it ad nauseam.

: >The Human GEnome Project is mapping the DNA base pairs in every gene in
: >the human cell. There are 3 billion DNA base pairs. Each one contains a
: >minute message to a certain type of cell, a trait, if you will. But even
: >when they complete the mapping, they won't know what each base pair does.
: >They've found a few, all of them because they cause hereditary diseases,
: >like cystic fibrosis. But what they can do is line up individual A's DNA
: >next to individual B's and tell you how many base pairs are different.
: >(Watch OJ Simpson trial) There are hardly any differences between humans'
: >DNA (in fact there's hardly any difference between humans and chimps) but,
: >as the Newsweek article points out, if you pick two "blacks" at random and
: >test their DNA, you will probably find that their genes have less in
: >common that do the genes of one of them with that of a random "white"
: >person.

: You are under the mistaken impression that the only way we can tell if a
: gene exist is if we map it on the genome. Not true.

This rejoinder has nothing to do with topic under discussion.
I guess parrots can't do everything.

: >
: >Newsweek also goes on to neatly explain that it all depends on what trait
: >you pick. If blood type is an indicator of race, Germans and Papua New
: >Guineans are the same race, as are Japanese and Estonians.

: Newsweek is being stupid on purpose to suit their own PC agenda. Blood
: type is one trait that can be used to help determine genetic distance.
: However, it is not a good indicator by itself. One needs a whole genetic
: constellation.

: Since Newsweek has apparently ignored this fact, it's obvious that they
: are presenting a bias and incorrect view.

Oh yes, it's all just a big PC conspiracy. Have you been paying
attention to the reports coming out of Atlanta where the AAAS
is having their annual convention? Everything the poster is saying
is backed up by the most current, solid research coming out of
the fields of genetics, population biology, and anthropology.
But you just sit back in your little imaginary world, where
everything that challenges your antiquated theories is acting
on a "PC agenda." What a joke.

: >As to what do IQ tests measure? How about ability to take tests? How
: >about desire to excel in grades? SAT scores? Do they reflect the
: >emphasis the high school puts on getting into college? Could the "Asian"
: >high scores be due to the pressure to study from their families, and
: >their relatively lower scores on language due to the fact that they are
: >not allowed to play with other kids, but must go home and study?

: It really doesn't matter what it measures, but what it's corelated with.
: It has proven to be a significant data point in predicting many things.

James White (and others) have illustrated that you don't know
the first thing about valid correlations, nor what a correlation
really indicates and what it doesn't indicate.

: >But, let's say that there is such a thing as "black" and "white" and
: >let's say that IQ tests measure intelligence. I'd like to see somebody
: >sometime correlate poverty level with IQ.

: Humm. See page 134 of _The Bell Curve_. It's been done. If you are two
: SD's below average, then you have a 25% probability of being in poverty.
: 2 SDs above, then the probability of being in poverty is 2%.

It's time to stop relying on The Bell Curve. It's little more
than pseudoscience, and has been validly discredited even here
on the net. It was dismissed by the academic community within
a week of being published.

: >Poor infant nutrition, lack of
: >protein, causes actual damage to brain cells. Poor kids go to poor
: >schools, miss more school days due to illness, have little incentive to
: >learn. If the same proportion of poor "whites" as "blacks" was tested,
: >I'll bet there would be no significant differences.

: Actually, there was about 1 SD OR MORE (about 16 IQ points) between blacks
: and whites of the same socioeconomic class. See page 288 of _The Bell
: Curve_. You lose your bet.

There are books written about the lost continent of Mu, as well.
Perhaps we should direct students of geology to these.

Arun Gupta posted Thomas Sowell's review of TBC, and not a
single Curvite has responded. Is that because Sowell is quite
politically conservative, and therefore presents criticisms
that cut to the very core of the issue while being exempt from
accusations of PC?

WRT genetics, what about the fact that among Blacks with
high IQs, women far outnumber the men? They have the same
genetic information as their brothers, and yet they are
grossly overrepresented in the 120-180 range. Environment,
Lajoie. It's everthing.

:
: >
: >Lastly, I lived in a country where a large portion of the population was
: >illiterate--poor peasants. As a result, they had to rely on memory for
: >everything. They didn't know what a map or an ocean was, but you could
: >read them a list of 50 items once, and they had it memorized. They were
: >awesome. Intelligent? I dunno. You couldn't test them. They were
: >classified as "Caucasian" by the way.

: Anecdotal.

I believe I understand why you don't give up your lies and
pretense that you actually know what you're talking about:
You are some kind of spokesperson for people who are too
ignorant to know how full of it you are, but who continue
to share your racist views in spite of overwhelming scientific
evidence that counters every single brain-dead point you make.